[Scspamcop] Re: low importance - anyone know what this spammer is peddling?

[Pop]

Tim McGraw wrote:
> Pop wrote:
>> jg wrote:
>>> Pop inquired:
>>>> jg wrote:
>>>>> Blinky the Shark inquired:
>>>>>> ed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a very-well-paid vacation for serious energetic people.
>>>>>> Nice misspelling of vocation, there.  Makes it sound good.  :)
>>>>>>
>>>>> no, spammer meant vacation.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a set of spammer rules and there should be a set of spam
>>>>> reader rules as well.
>>>>> Anyone dumb enough to think that manna falls off the branches of
>>>>> the internet tree will respond to offers of paid vacations.  Most
>>>>> of this ilk don't know what vocation means...
>>>> Ignorance and inexperience is not a crime, nor is it shameful.
>>>> Neither is being "dumb" about something.
>>> I suggest we agree to disagree on this point - 'ignorance of the law
>>> is no excuse' is an underpinning of our judicial system and the same
>>> philosophy should be in place in daily life and on the net
>>>
>>>>    If you're hungry enough, cold enough, undressed enough, poor
>>>> enough, streetwise, etc. etc. etc., even you could find in your
>>>> desperation that some of those offers could be very enticing.
>>> Indeed enticing but it leads nowhere and if you don't have the
>>> smarts to understand that, you shouldn't be using a computer facing
>>> the internet. It is exactly that 'dumbness' that allows the spam
>>> trade to flourish, making life miserable for all.
>>>
>>>> It's easy to be disparaging; it's harder to be sensible.
>>
>> All I can say is, wow, what a myopic, egocentric view.
>
> I wish I knew who you were addressing and what you believe is "myopic,
> egocentric."

View the complete thread, read the post, and check the times; you'll see 
they agree.